After the passion of March for Our Lives, some groups see the best hope for legislative success in states such as Washington and Oregon

Though America has seen a string of mass shootings over the past year, no gun control legislation has been passed at the federal level.Three months after 17 people were killed and 17 injured at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, leading to a national push for reform led by student survivors, the debate has shifted, from Capitol Hill to states across the country.

As Novembers midterm elections approach, advocates of stricter gun laws hope to place the issue directly into the hands of voters. States such as Oregon and Washington will consider ballot initiatives including a ban on assault rifles and raising the minimum age for purchasing certain kinds of gun.

Activists increasingly believe the issue will be litigated at the state level, given the National Rifle Associations strength in Washington. After all, polling has found that voters are broadly supportive of modest gun restrictions, a trend that has held since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 children and six adults were killed.

Its not surprising that people are turning to the ballot to address gun safety, said Donna De La Cruz, a spokeswoman at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive group that focuses on ballot measure campaigns. In poll after poll, commonsense gun laws are overwhelmingly popular.

Many politicians are too beholden to the NRA to address the gun violence epidemic, De La Cruz said, noting that the 2018 elections will see a classic use of ballot measures to enact important reforms that corporate-controlled legislatures are unwilling to pass.

Actually, beware of ballot initiatives, particularly in states with large urban populations. It wouldn't be too hard to get an AWB or high-cap magazine ban on a ballot that every minivan-driving soccer mom would gladly vote for.

>>Actually, beware of ballot initiatives, particularly in states with large urban populations. It wouldn’t be too hard to get an AWB or high-cap magazine ban on a ballot that every minivan-driving soccer mom would gladly vote for.

Oh, I wasn’t doubting the stupidity of the average voter. I was commenting on the amount of stupidity that is required to think that an initiative could actually be a “reform” instead of being a ban, or more likely, an unenforceable law that would just give militarized law enforcement another tool of oppression to add to their growing toolbox.

9
posted on 05/15/2018 3:11:10 PM PDT
by Bryanw92
(Asking a pro athlete for political advice is like asking a cavalry horse for tactical advice.)

Consider the idea all blue states ban guns. The consider they all border on red states that just follow the 2A. We have guns, high capacitymags, bump stocks, full auto weapons of all sorts, and lots and lots of ammo. I like it anyone see a problem here?

19th century cases
16. *
Wilson v. State, 33 Ark.
557
, at
560
, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)
.
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or
guns, the evil must be prevented by the
(p.17)
penitentiary and gallows, and not by a
general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. *
Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App.
298
, at
300-01
(1878)
.
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the
defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his
person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights
is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the
surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. *
Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn.
165
, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871)
.
“The passage from Story (A Constitutional commentator) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have
maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the
citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. *
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.)
243
, at
251
(1846)
.
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole
people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear
arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be
infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the
important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so
vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”

20.
Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn.
356
, at
359-60
(1833)
.
“But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought
over with them this English statute, [the statute of Northampton,] or portion of the
common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, ‘that the freemen of
this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ Article II, sec.
26. * * * By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all
the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any
qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be
going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgement a constitutional privilege,
which is so declared; neither, after so solumn an instrument hath said the people may
carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed, such a necessarily
consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to
the framers of it, the absence of such a view.”

21.
Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.)
90
, at
92, and 93
, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
.
“For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed
arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be
unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.”
“But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the
constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the
constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part
may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by
the constitution.”

The issue in Oregon is especially egregious. There is a Oregon statute that actually prohibits ballot Initiatives to remove/infring 2nd Amendment rights. ORS 166.170
I cannot Understand how it Has been allowed to proceed in light of that statute.

Yep - and explaining why the Constitution has no “Noble Cause” clause....there’s so many potential “noble causes” in some folks minds that the libs would rule the universe ....for the 22 years it would take them to destroy it.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.